5 ms·

They didn't even intrinsically dislike mechanisation. They just viewed machine sabotage as an effective tactic. The straw man of them being anti technology cru

They didn't even intrinsically dislike mechanisation. They just viewed machine sabotage as an effective tactic. The straw man of them being anti technology crusaders was entirely a stereotype created and perpetuated by capitalists.

shams93 8y ago
Yeah the story is not so much about being anti-technology rayger it's about taking action when technology ceases to be a tool for the common good and instead enables a handful to place inhuman levels of leverage over the majority with it.
jpttsn 8y ago
The captialists had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike the luddites. They just viewed straw men as an effective tactic.
- wiz21c 8y ago
  >> rational when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Compassion and sympathy without reason just lead to activities that don't help those who are supposed to be helped, and may even harm them. Reason is not incompatible with compassion.
  - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
    Why are those superior attributes to rationality?
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine
      - roenxi 8y ago
        There isn't a moment in recorded history where one human acting alone has outperformed a group of humans working in tandem. It just doesn't happen. You sometimes get scenarios where one human has disproportionate social control over a group, but even then experiments with democracy have shown it overwhelmingly outperforms the competition. So far on both an absolute and a per capita basis. Many (most?) of our morals also happen to be game-theory optimums that you would raitionally see value in even as a true sociopath. What you describe isn't rational, it is some combination of desperation and short term thinking. The rational approach has always been to organise and cooperate. If you actually tried to behave that way you would discover that what you call 'behaving rationally' will involve you having no material goods, comfort or prospect for obtaining them.
        anoncoward111 8y ago
        ok, i have a better one: "rationally", i shouldn't care about global warming because it's inconvenient to alter my lifestyle and because global warming will not affect me as much in my lifetime but "empathetically" i care about the future environment i'm leaving for future humans
        shakna 8y ago
        You're using 'rational' as something devoid from worldview - which it can't be. Rationally I should have multiple children, as my only legacy is my name. Still rational, differing worldview. Part of the worldview your thoughts on rationallity betray is that only the 'here and now' matter. Which only fits a very small philosophy even within the subset of humanity that have no belief in anything supernatural. A worldview guides not just our view on our relationship to others, and ourselves, and not just moral conduct, but the end goals being targeted. Our rationallity cannot be divorced from our motivations. Some worldviews are just 'to live another day', others are more nuanced, measuring impact against criteria. For example, frugality is a worldview, where you don't have any rational compulsion to kill, steal and hoarde, as you don't need it anyway.
  - megaman22 8y ago
    Rational is exactly what is needed. People suck, and sympathy for their suckiness and failings is the last thing that will spur meaningful progress in the crusade to make people suck less. I wish I was kidding.
    - projektir 8y ago
      That's a really high horse you're sitting on.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Rationality is mostly orthogonal to empathy, sympathy and compassion. Think of it this way: empathy, sympathy, and compassion are inputs. Rationality is the reasoning process. If you're rational but don't have those three inputs, you'll end up as a highly-functional sociopath. If you do have those three inputs but don't think rationally, you'll make a lot of wrong decisions that hurt people you're trying to help.

shams93 8y ago

Yeah the story is not so much about being anti-technology rayger it's about taking action when technology ceases to be a tool for the common good and instead enables a handful to place inhuman levels of leverage over the majority with it.

jpttsn 8y ago

The captialists had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike the luddites. They just viewed straw men as an effective tactic.

wiz21c 8y ago
>> rational when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Compassion and sympathy without reason just lead to activities that don't help those who are supposed to be helped, and may even harm them. Reason is not incompatible with compassion.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  Why are those superior attributes to rationality?
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine
    - roenxi 8y ago
      There isn't a moment in recorded history where one human acting alone has outperformed a group of humans working in tandem. It just doesn't happen. You sometimes get scenarios where one human has disproportionate social control over a group, but even then experiments with democracy have shown it overwhelmingly outperforms the competition. So far on both an absolute and a per capita basis. Many (most?) of our morals also happen to be game-theory optimums that you would raitionally see value in even as a true sociopath. What you describe isn't rational, it is some combination of desperation and short term thinking. The rational approach has always been to organise and cooperate. If you actually tried to behave that way you would discover that what you call 'behaving rationally' will involve you having no material goods, comfort or prospect for obtaining them.
      - anoncoward111 8y ago
        ok, i have a better one: "rationally", i shouldn't care about global warming because it's inconvenient to alter my lifestyle and because global warming will not affect me as much in my lifetime but "empathetically" i care about the future environment i'm leaving for future humans
        shakna 8y ago
        You're using 'rational' as something devoid from worldview - which it can't be. Rationally I should have multiple children, as my only legacy is my name. Still rational, differing worldview. Part of the worldview your thoughts on rationallity betray is that only the 'here and now' matter. Which only fits a very small philosophy even within the subset of humanity that have no belief in anything supernatural. A worldview guides not just our view on our relationship to others, and ourselves, and not just moral conduct, but the end goals being targeted. Our rationallity cannot be divorced from our motivations. Some worldviews are just 'to live another day', others are more nuanced, measuring impact against criteria. For example, frugality is a worldview, where you don't have any rational compulsion to kill, steal and hoarde, as you don't need it anyway.
- megaman22 8y ago
  Rational is exactly what is needed. People suck, and sympathy for their suckiness and failings is the last thing that will spur meaningful progress in the crusade to make people suck less. I wish I was kidding.
  - projektir 8y ago
    That's a really high horse you're sitting on.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Rationality is mostly orthogonal to empathy, sympathy and compassion. Think of it this way: empathy, sympathy, and compassion are inputs. Rationality is the reasoning process. If you're rational but don't have those three inputs, you'll end up as a highly-functional sociopath. If you do have those three inputs but don't think rationally, you'll make a lot of wrong decisions that hurt people you're trying to help.